Coronavirus in DFW - News & Discussion (Van, Detroit: reduction, America)

[serger]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

What are some of the satisfactory examples of natural herd immunity from a deadly disease that didn't involve vaccines?

None.

[4Movingeast]

I am not anti vaccine in any way shape or form, to the contrary, I believe in them! Every member of my family is fully vaccinated (inc boosters) and we get our flu shots every year. BUT. I am not excited about a rushed Covid 19 vaccine. Vaccines should be fully tested before we line up to receive them. By all means develop them quickly, but test them thoroughly before they are rolled out.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

What are some of the satisfactory examples of natural herd immunity from a deadly disease that didn't involve vaccines?

I have been unable to come up with a one. Let's talk about major infectious diseases that are now rare (or far less severe than they used to be) in the developed world.


Measles, mumps, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, smallpox: Widespread mandatory vaccination


Cholera, typhoid, typhus: Improved sanitation


Malaria, yellow fever, dengue, liver fluke, plague: Control of disease vectors (mosquitoes, flukes, rat fleas)


Sepsis, peritonitis, syphilis, gonorrhea, TB: Improved anti-bacterials (antibiotics)


HIV: Anti-viral and supportive drugs (HIV infection doesn't get cured, but people can now live for decades and die of some other cause)


There are probably others, but I can't think of any major disease that has become rare simply due to everyone being infected with it and developing immunity.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by turf3

I can't think of any major disease that has become rare simply due to everyone being infected with it and developing immunity.

Thank you for the clarification of the concept.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

What are some of the satisfactory examples of natural herd immunity from a deadly disease that didn't involve vaccines?

I'm not aware of any. We probably won't get to herd immunity without a vaccine.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by 4Movingeast

I am not anti vaccine in any way shape or form, to the contrary, I believe in them! Every member of my family is fully vaccinated (inc boosters) and we get our flu shots every year. BUT. I am not excited about a rushed Covid 19 vaccine. Vaccines should be fully tested before we line up to receive them. By all means develop them quickly, but test them thoroughly before they are rolled out.

I could be wrong, but I think most of the normal tests are still happening. The difference is simply the resources and expediency that are going into those tests. Moderna, for example, is starting its stage three trial later in July with 30,000 people. I believe that is a normal stage three trial.

[move4ward]

Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla

I was asking for actual statistics. (Hospitalization rate)

This is an opinion.

I haven't seen any real hospitalization rates. You can look at hospitalized patients over confirmed cases. The number will be inflated by asymptomatic carriers that were never tested or people that couldn't get tested.

If a city does not have enough hospital beds, patients may be turned away while dying. The hospitalization rate may be too low.

[DPatel304]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

"Herd immunity" is probably the most misunderstood concept in all of this. It doesn't begin to kick it at all until at least 50% of the population is infected. Even if you think cases are underreported by a factor of ten, we've only had about 8% of the population infected.

We will almost certainly have a vaccine before we have natural herd immunity.

Wouldn't things like wearing masks and social distancing affect that 50% figure? We really have no idea how much of the population has actually been affected. It could even be more than a factor of ten.

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

Wouldn't things like wearing masks and social distancing affect that 50% figure? We really have no idea how much of the population has actually been affected. It could even be more than a factor of ten.

I think it is. If (and its an IF) NY, Chicago, Detroit, etc. open up and the virus doesnt spike, that means infections are far above and beyond what we thought. Thats a good thing though.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

Wouldn't things like wearing masks and social distancing affect that 50% figure? We really have no idea how much of the population has actually been affected. It could even be more than a factor of ten.

No, it wouldn't. Herd immunity has nothing to do with transmission rates or masks. It is a mathematical notion that relates to the number of vectors (people who can pass the virus) needed in order for a virus to effectively spread.

Imagine 100% of the population quarantined completely but only three people in America had the virus. There would be no herd immunity, but there also wouldn't be transmission. Things like masks affect transmission, but they don't have anything to do with herd immunity. On the other end of the spectrum, if 98% of the population had already had the virus and was immune, and people walked around sneezing on each other all day, the virus wouldn't spread very far.....that is herd immunity.

People who advocate for herd immunity are really just advocating for everyone to get the virus.